FOUNDATIONS FOR WIND TURBINES

ENGR 340 – Fall 2011

Jeramy C. Ashlock Vern Schaefer

Assistant Professor, CCEE Professor, CCEE
OUTLINE
Topics Lecture #
Design requirements,
Foundation types 1

Overview of geotechnical engineering

• Soil mechanics
• Site investigations 1&2
• In-situ tests
• Laboratory tests

Foundations for wind turbines,

Design example 2

2
TURBINE FOUNDATION LOADS
 Vertical, shear forces and significant
overturning moments are transmitted to
foundation by tower
 Must be resisted within tolerances for
foundation settlement and tilt
 Manufacturers typically specify horizontal
and rotational foundation stiffness criteria
 Loading direction changes with wind
direction and nacelle orientation
 Circular foundation shape is therefore
optimal, but straight-sided (e.g. octagonal,
hexagonal) is easier to construct
 Anchors can be used to add rotational
strength
3
FOUNDATION CONTACT STRESS UNDER
ECCENTRIC/MOMENT LOADS
To prevent loss of contact and uplift, the foundation
is typically designed such that the eccentricity e of
the resultant is e < B/6. In other words, M<PB/6.

4
OFFSHORE FOUNDATION OPTIONS

5
Source: Malhothra, 2011
OFFSHORE FOUNDATIONS

Photos: NREL

6
TYPICAL TURBINE FOUNDATION OPTIONS

 On rock or competent soil:

• Shallow concrete “inverted tee” mat foundations ($)
 On weak or soft soils (bearing capacity or stiffness too
low, settlements too high):
• Rammed Aggregate Piers or VibroPiers under footings or mats
($$)
• Soil improvement such as deep soil mixing, compaction, over-
excavation & replacement with compacted lifts of aggregate
($$$)
• Deep foundations; piles, drilled shafts ($$$$)
• Concrete-filled corrugated pipe with post-tensioned anchor
bolts (proprietary design; $$?)
7
SHALLOW/SLAB FOUNDATION VARIANTS

8
PILED FOUNDATION VARIANTS

9
PILED FOUNDATION
VARIANTS

10
OCTAGONAL SHALLOW MAT FOUNDATIONS
Source: GeoPier / http://www.windsystemsmag.com/view/article.php?articleID=97

11
OCTAGONAL SHALLOW MAT FOUNDATIONS

Typical dimensions:
 Footing
• width: 50-65 ft
• avg. depth: 4-6 ft
 Pedestal 18-20 ft
• diameter: 18-20 ft
• height: 8-9 ft
8-9 ft
4-6ft
50-65 ft 12
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIERS (RAPs) UNDER FOOTINGS OR MATS
Source: GeoPier / http://www.windsystemsmag.com/view/article.php?articleID=97

13
RAPs UNDER FOOTINGS OR MATS

RAPs are used for

• Decreased settlements
• Improved bearing capacity in weak or compressible soils
• Increased rotational stiffness
• Uplift resistance

Alternative solutions for uplift resistance:

helical anchors or helical piles

14
ANCHORS FOR UPLIFT RESISTANCE

15
 P&H TENSIONLESS FOUNDATION DESIGN

 Proprietary design of
Patrick & Henderson, Inc.
• concentric corrugated metal
pipes filled with concrete that is
compressed by post-tensioned
rods

http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/redington/Click_to_Start.htm
16
For more info, see
Patent # 5586417
patents.google.com

17
FOUNDATIONS MUST BE DESIGNED FOR THE SITE
CONDITIONS OF EACH PROJECT, NOT JUST SELECTED
“Using site-specific design loads and carrying out site-specific
wind turbine designs is somewhat in contrast with the current
trend within the wind turbine industry. In order to keep down
manufacturing costs, the current trend is not to site-optimise
wind turbines, but rather to produce a selection of standard
wind turbines. The task is then to choose a standard wind
turbine from this selection and verify that it is suitable for a
given location. The tower and the foundation may still be site-
optimised if desirable, and site-specific loads will be required
for this purpose. The foundation design will always have to be
site-specific in that it needs to be designed for the prevailing
local soil conditions.”

Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbines, 2nd ed. − DNV/Risø

18
FOUNDATIONS MUST BE DESIGNED FOR THE SITE
CONDITIONS OF EACH PROJECT, NOT JUST SELECTED

“Foundation designs are integrated into the type certification

for some turbines. Where this is the case, the foundation design
must be evaluated for the external conditions for which it is
intended. Poor geotechnical investigation and foundation
design have led to delays and cost overruns at European wind
farms (Gerdes et al. 2006).”

Structural Integrity of Offshore Turbines – Oversight of Design,

Fabrication and Installation, TRB Special Report 305, 2011

19
DESIGN STEPS/CHECKS FOR
SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
1. Minimum embedment below frost depth
2. Bearing capacity
3. Settlements: Elastic, Consolidation and Differential
4. FS against sliding and overturning
5. Structural design of foundation (typ. reinforced concrete)
6. Drainage
7. Foundation stiffness accounting for modulus degradation
due to cyclic loading
8. Dynamic analysis for avoiding resonance of soil-
foundation-structure system
9. Scour and erosion (for offshore foundations)
20
BEARING CAPACITY:
ECCENTRICITY OF LOAD
- Design loads V, H act at
the foundation base

- Eccentricity e = M/V

- H is reduced if a torque
Mz acts about vertical
axis (see DNV/Risø
Guidelines)

21
BEARING CAPACITY:
EFFECTIVE AREA FOR ECCENTRIC LOAD

Reduced effective
foundation area
Aeff =beff leff is defined
such that the eccentric
vertical load is at the
center of the effective
area:
beff  b  2 e
l eff  b
22
 BEARING CAPACITY: EFFECTIVE AREA
FOR DOUBLY ECCENTRIC LOAD
- For square foundations, a
doubly eccentric load
further reduces the
effective area:
beff  l eff  b  e 2

- Since direction of
eccentricity varies with
nacelle orientation, a
circular foundation plan
is the most efficient
23
BEARING CAPACITY: EFFECTIVE AREA FOR ECCENTRIC
LOAD ON OCTAGONAL/CIRCULAR FOUNDATIONS
- Octagonal foundation is
more practical for
construction
- Ellipse is used for reduced
area:
 2 1  e  
 R cos   
Aeff  2 R 
 
2

2 
 e R e 
2
 b 
M ajor axis: l e  2 R 1   1  
 2 R 
M inor axis: be  2( R  e ) 24
BEARING CAPACITY: EFFECTIVE AREA FOR ECCENTRIC
LOAD ON OCTAGONAL/CIRCULAR FOUNDATIONS
- Ellipse can be replaced by
equivalent rectangle for ease
of design calculations:
T ake
be
beff  l eff
le
then

le
l eff  Aeff
be

25
BEARING CAPACITY
 Fully drained (long-term) conditions:

1
q ult  c N c  q N q   beff N 
2

 Undrained (short-term or rapid loading) conditions in clay:

 u  0, N   0, N q  1,

q ult  cu N c  q

 Generally need to apply shape, depth, & inclination factors as

well
26
SETTLEMENT

 Total settlement ST = Se + Sc + Ss
• Se = Elastic settlement (immediate). Most important for
sands.
• Sc = Consolidation settlement; due to squeezing out of
water and air from pore space. Most important for clays,
small for sands. Can take years to complete. Rate and
amount of settlement determined from consolidation
theory combined with lab tests.
• Ss = Secondary settlement; long-term rearrangement of
soil structure under constant effective stress. Magnitude
depends on mineral types present in soil

27
 FS AGAINST SLIDING
 (hor. resisting forces) c b  Aeff  V tan  b
Fs    1.5
 (hor. driving forces) H

• cb = adhesion between soil and foundation,

often taken as 1/2 to 2/3 of the soil’s cohesion
• b = angle of interface friction between soil & base,
often taken as 1/2 to 2/3 of 
• For Undrained conditions in clay, u = 0;
c b  Aeff
Fs   1.5
H 28
FS AGAINST OVERTURNING

 Similar to the case of sliding, we can take the

ratio of restoring moments to overturning
moments:
 (restoring m om ents)
Fs   1.5,
 (overturning m om ents)

Loss of contact is usually ensured by keeping e<B/6

29
FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST OVERTURNING

FS < 1.0

noturbinesin.saddleworth.net

30
DRAINAGE
 Needed to maintain the design bearing capacity as calculated
based on the assumed maximum water table elevation

 Can be provided by using drainage “tiles”, free-draining

backfill, and sloping the finished grade away from foundation
to prevent ponding

 Excessive wetting of clay soils can cause

expansion  differential settlements

 Excessive drying of clay soils (e.g. from nearby vegetation) can

cause shrinking settlements

31
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS:
COUPLED SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

“A complete natural frequency analysis shall be

performed for the combined structure consisting
of turbine, tower, tripod and piles” [and soil].
For this purpose, the non-linear soil must be
linearized. It is to be verified that the lowest
frequencies differ from at least ±10% of the 1P
and 3P rotor frequencies at nominal power.”

Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbines, 2nd ed. − DNV/Risø

32
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS:
COUPLED SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

“The dynamics and relative stiffness of the supporting

structural and foundation components, commonly
envisaged as a monotower in shallow water (but which
could be a vertical axis system, a floating system, etc.),
have an interrelationship with the stiffness and rotation
frequency and loads of the blades that must be carefully
addressed in the design for long-term performance.”

Structural Integrity of Offshore Turbines – Oversight of Design, Fabrication and Installation,

TRB Special Report 305, 2011

33
DYNAMIC FOUNDATION STIFFNESS
 Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI): dynamic soil response affects
response of structure and vice-versa
 Stiffness of soil is generally nonlinear and frequency dependent, but
often simplified in terms of springs and dashpots
 Stiffness (shear modulus G) and damping () depend nonlinearly on
cyclic shear strain c
 As c increases, G decreases from small-strain value Gmax while 
increases
 Design: must use a reduced G based on anticipated shear strain level
(typically 10-2 to 10-3 for wind turbines) in dynamic analysis of soil-
foundation-turbine system
 G can then be used to obtain an “equivalent elastic” Young’s modulus E
for calculating elastic settlements using the reduced foundation area (see
Mayne et al. 2002)
Mayne, P.W. et al., “Subsurface Exploration-Geotechnical Characterization”, FHWA Publication NHI-
01-031, May 2002. 34
DESIGN OF PILE FOUNDATIONS
More
complicated
than shallow
foundations

Covered in
CE 561

35
Ensoft (1996), Computer Program Group 4.0 User’s Manual
REFERENCES
Selected information, images and figures are from
• Ashlock, J.C., Iowa State University CCEE Dept.
• Bowles (1982), Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill
• Chang and DiMaggio (2002), Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6, Shallow Foundations,
Federal Highway Administration Office of Bridge Technology
• Coduto (2001), Foundation Design, Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall
• Das (2011), Principles of Foundation Engineering, 7th ed., Cengage Learning
• DNV/Risø (2002), Guidelines for Design of Wind Turbines, 2nd ed., Denmark.
• GeoPier Foundation Company
• Hayward Baker Geotechnical Construction
• Malhotra, S. (2011), Selection, Design and Construction of Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations, Wind
Turbines, Ibrahim Al-Bahadly (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-221-0, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/selection-design-and-construction-of-offshore-wind-
turbine-foundations
• Mayne, P.W., Christopher, B.R., and DeJong, J.T. (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations,
FHWA Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031, 294 pp.
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
• Pile Driving Contractors Association (PDCA)
• Reese, Isenhower and Wang (2006), Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations, Wiley
• Terracon Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Des Moines, IA
• www.windsystemsmag.com
36